I tend to agree with Prof. David Attard (The Sunday Times, December 6) that "the risk is just too great to take", and "Malta's efforts to influence the international debate needs to be reconsidered".
Quite so: the risk is really just too great and Malta needs to reconsider its efforts on this climate change frenzy, before going along with the massive international tax and spending schemes which the Climategate scandal exposes and confirms as unnecessary and fraudulent.
This massive anthropological global warming (AGW) swindle, up till the 1980s was rightly considered no more than science fiction. We should instead concentrate on facts, and ask some questions.
Let's start with the supposed sea-level rise. The same European Environmental Agency quoted in your special two-page spread on climate change does not even include 'sea-level rise' in its predictions for the Mediterranean region.
It could not be otherwise. Not even the Maldives really faces any threat of being "wiped out", as Prof. Attard alleged. Dr Nils-Axel Mörner, who knows more about sea-level rise than anyone and has been to thousands of locations actually doing sea-level studies found that levels there have fallen by between 20 and 30 cm in the 1970s, and have since remained stable.
It's obvious then that the government there is using this sea-level fable to get industrialised countries to hand out money.
About 'secret meetings' (why these had to be secret he never made clear) and the failed Hague Declaration on Environment, Prof. Attard will recall that participant states pledged that unanimous agreement is not to be sought in the fight against global warming. In this sense the Hague Declaration was a 'radical' document as it accepted that nations can be bound without their consent.
This is really why that declaration was "watered down".
On trading emissions I would need a whole page to explain the folly of these supposedly emission-reduction schemes. Perhaps some other time.
The latest Eurobarometer survey shows that Europeans' consideration of climate change as the world's most serious problem has dropped from 62 per cent in April 2008 to 47 per cent.
And the Maltese? In April 2008 64 per cent considered climate change as the world's most serious problem. The last survey shows a drop of 10 points to 54 per cent.
Can Prof. Attard illuminate me as to where in this last survey it says that 60 per cent of Maltese consider fighting climate change as important?
Scientific evidence of human-caused climate change always was and, after Climategate, is far from certain. The main scientific body behind IPCC, the UK Climate Research Unit, has been exposed as not only tampering its own findings to accommodate the global warming hoax, but in the incriminating e-mails you can also read about plots and efforts to demean or denigrate any climate scientists who disagreed or strayed from the AGW dogma.
A final consideration: 0.01 per cent. This is Malta's share of CO2 emissions, Malta's carbon footprint: just 0.01 per cent of global emissions. So much so that, under the still current Kyoto Protocol, Malta has no emission limitation commitments.
Malta ratified the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change as a non-Annex I party, which includes mostly developing countries, and the UN considers us among the Small Island Developing States (SIDS).
This is why Malta, together with Cyprus, under the Kyoto Protocol, has exceptional status also within the European Union.
Therefore, I am at a loss to understand why now we Maltese - as our Prime Minister declared - have "a guillotine or sword on our necks", referring, I presume, to future penalties for failing to comply with EU targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Furthermore why are we to fork out millions of euros a year towards an EU fund aimed at helping developing countries fight climate change, when Malta is considered a developing island nation with such low emissions?